While I don't know how The Joker will be handled in TDKR, I'm fairly certain this film will link to the previous films rather blatantly. The press says Ra's is back in some form, Scarecrow is rumored to be back, Bane rips up Dent's photo, and Nolan has said no to The Joker appearing in the new film because it makes him uncomfortable. But a reference, who knows.

Quote:

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story.” “And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we’ve done with the characters. My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff. Unlike the comics, these things don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we're telling.”

“The title of the new film is ‘The Dark Knight Rises‘ and we will be shooting and exhibiting the film in 2-D.” “We want the look and feel of the film to be faithful to what has come before in the first two films.” “There was a large canvas and operatic sweep to ‘The Dark Knight’ and we want to make a film that will carry on with that look and feel.” “There’s an intimacy at times [with spatial illusion of the 3-D effect] and we didn’t want to lose scale…. Our ambition for the third movie is to complete a story that has begun.” “This is not starting over, this is not rebooting. We’re finishing something, and keeping a consistency with what’s come before has real value.”

“I read the script 2 weeks ago, and he’s done it. Plain and simple — he’s done it. It’s a phenomenal script. He’s still in the process of cutting it back because it’s a very long script right now, but it’s really phenomenal. And he actually had me go back and wanted me to watch, in IMAX, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight again. When I watched those I had read the script for The Dark Knight Rises and was like, ‘dude, it is a perfect trilogy.’ I think that was his intent, to work off those two pictures — and they are very different pictures. And it’s funny, we all had different opinions about which picture we like better.”

"I haven't seen the script yet." "I know the story and it's a great story. You look at 'The Dark Knight' and you go, 'How's he going to top it?' But I think he has." "The scope of it and also the way he brings it back to 'Batman Begins,' and really what Bruce Wayne discovers about himself, what he learns about himself at the end of this one [will top off the trilogy]."

^^ Great work in compiling all those quotes, MagnarTheGreat. Those pretty much sum up why I'm not with jmc on this one. TDK did very much feel like a self-contained movie, but TDKR from what we've heard sounds like it will be anything but.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by CConn

Yeah, I'm all about subtext. I'm pretty sure I could watch two hours of monkeys mating if it had a mass of subtext underneath it all. :o

But that threat ended when TDK ended. The Joker is not in the movie so why does he need to be mentioned?

For me, to make it seem "real". If your city was shut down for a day last week by a maniac and covered by the news, would you forget him and never mention it? Alternatively, if you were a vigilante and fought a foe that helped kill the love of your life and destroy someone you admired, would you just forget him and never mention the situation you were put through?

The Joker is also a major reason why Batman is now wanted for several murders, including Harvey Dent's. The only reason Batman took the fall for Dent was to stop Joker from winning by letting Gotham's spirit be destroyed by seeing what Joker did to Dent and having all his good work undone.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

For me, to make it seem "real". If your city was shut down for a day last week by a maniac and covered by the news, would you forget him and never mention it? Alternatively, if you were a vigilante and fought a foe that helped kill the love of your life and destroy someone you admired, would you just forget him and never mention the situation you were put through?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by CConn

Yeah, I'm all about subtext. I'm pretty sure I could watch two hours of monkeys mating if it had a mass of subtext underneath it all. :o

For me, to make it seem "real". If your city was shut down for a day last week by a maniac and covered by the news, would you forget him and never mention it? Alternatively, if you were a vigilante and fought a foe that helped kill the love of your life and destroy someone you admired, would you just forget him and never mention the situation you were put through?

First of all, nothing has mentioned that this takes place a week after TDK.
Second, in the REAL world people dont talk about famous killers everyday months after they were killed/caught. Example: Ghadaffi, Bin Laden
Third, just because something isnt mentioned doesnt mean they have forgotten it.
Fourth, these are Batman movies. They are not suposed to be "real".
Fifth, The Dark Knight didnt bring up Ra's or Chill. Did that movie feel less real because of it?
Sixth, and most important of all. Possibly the most important rule of writing. Everything in a movie has to have a reason for it to be there. Every line, every character, everything must have a point. Bringing up something that isnt relevant to whats happening in the movie with no point is, well pointless.

Even if it feels less real(which is not true) I rather it would be a little less real than Nolan adding pointless dialogue. When Batman is fighting Bane or having a romantic scene with Catwoman, not even you are gonna think 'why are they not talking about the Joker'.

If the sixth rule is most important, why does Blackgate need to be dedicated to Harvey? Why do they need to mention Harvey at all, both of the Nolan's when asked to confirm Two-Face's death said his death was the end of his arc, yet here he is being mentioned several times in the film.

If Joker isn't mentioned, that's cool, Batman would have other things on his mind and wouldn't necesarrily bring Joker up, unless talking to Gordon or Alfred and comparing him to Bane. But people will want to hear it, most people went to see TDK because of Joker and Ledger and due to his magnificent performance it would just be strange to mention every other major villain except Joker.

If the sixth rule is most important, why does Blackgate need to be dedicated to Harvey? Why do they need to mention Harvey at all, both of the Nolan's when asked to confirm Two-Face's death said his death was the end of his arc, yet here he is being mentioned several times in the film.

If Joker isn't mentioned, that's cool, Batman would have other things on his mind and wouldn't necesarrily bring Joker up, unless talking to Gordon or Alfred and comparing him to Bane. But people will want to hear it, most people went to see TDK because of Joker and Ledger and due to his magnificent performance it would just be strange to mention every other major villain except Joker.

The mention of Harvey Dent probably has a point, otherwise it wouldnt be there. What the point is exactly, we dont know.

First of all, nothing has mentioned that this takes place a week after TDK.
Second, in the REAL world people dont talk about famous killers everyday months after they were killed/caught. Example: Ghadaffi, Bin Laden
Third, just because something isnt mentioned doesnt mean they have forgotten it.
Fourth, these are Batman movies. They are not suposed to be "real".
Fifth, The Dark Knight didnt bring up Ra's or Chill. Did that movie feel less real because of it?
Sixth, and most important of all. Possibly the most important rule of writing. Everything in a movie has to have a reason for it to be there. Every line, every character, everything must have a point. Bringing up something that isnt relevant to whats happening in the movie with no point is, well pointless.

Even if it feels less real(which is not true) I rather it would be a little less real than Nolan adding pointless dialogue. When Batman is fighting Bane or having a romantic scene with Catwoman, not even you are gonna think 'why are they not talking about the Joker'.

I see your argument laderlappen, but for #2, ppl still bring up those people. Especially when something similar happens and they compare the people involved. And your #4 reason is what a lot of people on here keep forgetting about these movies. This is a realistic take on the Batman universe and is very much supposed to feel "real".
And I'm sure there is going to be a point in the movie where it will be relevant to mention the Joker. In no way am I wanting someone to out of the blue say "hey! You guyz remember the joker man? Wasn't he crazy?" because that would be, well, pointless.

Second, in the REAL world people dont talk about famous killers everyday months after they were killed/caught. Example: Ghadaffi, Bin Laden

This is not the real world. This is a sequel to a superhero movie where a fictional city called Gotham was turned upside down by a psychotic clown called the Joker.

Quote:

Third, just because something isnt mentioned doesnt mean they have forgotten it.

Nobody said otherwise. The point being asked is will such a prominent villain who caused so much damage to Gotham and Batman be referenced.

Quote:

Fourth, these are Batman movies. They are not suposed to be "real".

So why did you mention the real world and real life serial killers if the real world is not applicable here?

Quote:

Fifth, The Dark Knight didnt bring up Ra's or Chill. Did that movie feel less real because of it?

Ra's and Chill didn't leave a lasting impact on Gotham. Gotham didn't know Ra's or the LOS existed. Everyone in Gotham knew and feared the Joker, even the underworld, who would rather get their ankles broken by Batman than cross Joker. Joker affected every area of Gotham. He was killing Cops, judges, he mutilated their beloved district attorney, blew up a hospital, took dozens of citizens hostage, caused a city wide evacuation, murdered Batman's best friend a love of his life, took over the underworld while killing several prominent mob bosses and burned half of their money etc. That's just the antics the people of Gotham know about. There's the whole mess with what he did in breaking Dent and leaving Batman to carry the can for Dent's actions as Two Face.

Quote:

Sixth, and most important of all. Possibly the most important rule of writing. Everything in a movie has to have a reason for it to be there. Every line, every character, everything must have a point. Bringing up something that isnt relevant to whats happening in the movie with no point is, well pointless.

What on earth makes you think bringing up the Joker will have no relevance to something happening in the movie? For example can you not envision a scene where the whole business of Batman being a hunted criminal for several murders is being dealt with, and Batman mentions he had to take the fall for Dent because Joker would have succeeded in breaking Gotham? Can you not see him discussing the consequences of this with Gordon? Or Alfred? Maybe even confiding in Selina when she asks is he really a killer?

Then there's Bane. He obviously finds out about what happened to Dent if those pics of him standing in public and tearing up photos of Dent is anything to go by. How does he find out about what happened with Dent?

Quote:

Even if it feels less real(which is not true) I rather it would be a little less real than Nolan adding pointless dialogue.

What makes you think it would be pointless? The legacy of the Joker's actions is going to live on in TDKR, or have you forgotten he's the reason why Batman had to take the blame for what Dent did? Can you really imagine talking about what happened to Dent and not mention the Joker, since he was the cause of it all?

Quote:

When Batman is fighting Bane or having a romantic scene with Catwoman, not even you are gonna think 'why are they not talking about the Joker'.

Yeah, that's exactly the scenarios we are all imagining it happening in

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Oh come on. What possible conclusion can you arrive to from seeing Batman being chased by hordes of Cops after watching TDK?

It's not? Batman being chased for murders he didn't commit could not be a significant plot in TDKR? You honestly believe that Nolan would sweep such a thing under the rug?

Say what? Batman being handed a Joker card is the same as the batsignal being smashed and Batman being chased by Gordon's cops for several murders?

Your analogy doesn't even make any sense. The Joker card was a prelude to the Joker, who played a massive part in the sequel. The Joker card was not a left over plot point from anything in the main Begins plot.

Because the events of Begins and the events of TDK are apples and oranges. There was nothing left over to deal with from the LOS plot in Begins apart from Crane still being on the loose.

TDK left Gotham thinking Batman killed their precious Harvey Dent and several other people. Gordon smashed the batsignal. Batman was seen being chased by a bunch of Cops.

You see TDKR going independently without addressing any of that in any significant way, even though we've seen them film a massive chase scene between Batman and the Cops, and Bane publicly ripping up photos of Dent?

I clearly give Nolan more credit than you do for telling a story.

Do me a favour, don't reply to my posts with a hundred different quotes and maybe I'll respond.

The entire city was not attacked or evacuated. All the damage was contained on the Narrows Island.

Gordon: "The Narrows is lost"

That was the only damage done by the LOS. Their plot was foiled and Ra's was killed. Everything was wrapped up. The only loose end was Crane, who appeared in TDK. Oh and Falcone got a mention of being in Arkham and his empire was taken over by Maroni.

The fact that any part of Gotham was attacked by biological weapons is news, especially as wide as the League's attack was. They don't even mention how the train explosion, when it took down the track near Wayne Tower. Batman or Gordon should have been mentioned R'as or The League at least, especially since TDK is only 6 months later. Something like "with R'as it was different" or anything. It bugged me.

The fact that any part of Gotham was attacked by biological weapons is news, especially as wide as the League's attack was. They don't even mention how the train explosion, when it took down the track near Wayne Tower. Batman or Gordon should have been mentioned R'as or The League at least, especially since TDK is only 6 months later. Something like "with R'as it was different" or anything. It bugged me.

The League's attack wasn't wide. That's the point. The damage was contained on the Narrows. It was not a city wide event. It can't have been that bad either if Arkham was still up and running, which apparently it was when Dent mentioned Falcone still being in there during the courtroom scene in TDK.

The destruction of the train, hardly something that would pop up in conversation now is it? It's just a train. They can make another one.

Gordon and Gotham didn't know about the League or Ra's. Do we ever see Batman mention them by name to Gordon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmc

And I can't be stuffed replying to it.

I'm sure I'll manage to live with that

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

For me I guess it depends on how much time has passed between films two and three. If it's not much (idunno, say a year), then I feel like the Joker's presence should still be felt. But if it's been a few years or more...I think he can go without mention.

The reason no reference is made in TDK to the events of Begins is because the story is self contained and the events of the previous film are irrelevant, even though it's a sequel. Rises will more than likely be the same.

i dont think i agree with this. i believe that the events of the dark knight will have a profound effect on the the dark knight rises. a lot more so than batman begins to the dark knight anyway. Rises will most likely connect all three movies together and will have mentions of the events from both begins and the dark knight.